Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
In Vista it's very hard/impossible. That's why uvmain said he'd be installing Win7.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Mirror's Edge PhysX Performance: PPU vs GPU vs CPU
- Thread starter Final8y
- Start date
In Vista it's very hard/impossible. That's why uvmain said he'd be installing Win7.
If they used all the resources on the CPU, they could likely double non-PPU/GPU assisted scores, which in turn would mean an add-in card for PhysX would only add a mediocre boost in overall performance... Heheh, makes me think all this hardware assisted physics stuff is just a load of hot air.
I dunno about that... even with a modified version of the tokamak source with optimization for intel core 2 instruction sets its still not hugely faster than physx for software physics. Tho thats just like for like benchmarks with 2000 sphere RBs not sure what would happen with more complex physics.
Last edited:
If they used all the resources on the CPU, they could likely double non-PPU/GPU assisted scores, which in turn would mean an add-in card for PhysX would only add a mediocre boost in overall performance... Heheh, makes me think all this hardware assisted physics stuff is just a load of hot air.
I have had my suspicions of PhysX CPU utilization,optimization for quite some time.
Proof is in the pudding which they will not do because anything that improves PhysX on the CPU is a little less reason to own a physx card.
The wider you make the gap the better it looks.
NV are not in it to help the sales of games, they want to sell hardware and you don't put more effort than the bear minimum to function into making software run better on competing hardware .
Last edited:
Yeah I'm just saying with another physics engine without the possible bias... even running less accurate simulations with full mutli threaded and instruction set optimization (not my work I'm just using the API) its not significantly faster than physx for software simulations. And its as like for like as possible as most calls are possible to translate between APIs with marginal difference to the code.
Understandable since it isn't stealing resources from the GPU, it's not that the PPU is faster just that the GPU can put 100% of resources into graphics without the burden of physics.
A GPU will be capable of far more physics than one of Ageia's old PPU's though.
Last edited:
As been stated in posts on the other forum which i have linked to.
And to aad BLACK had Glass incredible effects.
CryoS PhysX water effects did nothing for my & im more impressed with ATI's ToyShop random water generator http://www2.ati.com/misc/demos/ati-demo-toyshop-v1.2.exe Edit the screen res in the Sushi Configuration Settings.
Last edited:
Splinter cell (quite a few years back) has pretty awesome cloth simulations (hanging curtains, shower curtains, blinds, etc.) but they were limited to 1 per current scene or performance took a massive nose dive, in the few scenes where there was 2-3 instances performance dropped by 2/3rds. With a GPU you could use that effect extensively throughout the scene.
I have no doubt that it would be possible to squeeze quite a bit more software performance out of physx with the right motivation but it would not be in any way comparable to high end GPU performance. A 260 at 756MHz v a Q6600 @ 3.6gig is between 20 and 60 times faster at doing physics depending on what kind of physics you have in the scene, even with some pretty heavy weight optimization to the software code for extensive effects its still going to be a minimum of 10x faster.
I have no doubt that it would be possible to squeeze quite a bit more software performance out of physx with the right motivation but it would not be in any way comparable to high end GPU performance. A 260 at 756MHz v a Q6600 @ 3.6gig is between 20 and 60 times faster at doing physics depending on what kind of physics you have in the scene, even with some pretty heavy weight optimization to the software code for extensive effects its still going to be a minimum of 10x faster.
Last edited:
Comparable was not the point because if PhysX on the CPU was, then it would be the number 1 reason not to make it happen on the CPU.
It does not matter on how many scenes it is included on, if it can done then that's all that matters.
Last edited:
eh?
lol I'm not too bothered either way (other than I hate game technology being held back because of "beauracry") at the end of the day people can carry on burying their heads in the sand but hardware accelerated physics are the future and aren't just going to go away (unless intel brings out some miracle CPU in the next 12-18 months).
Its not about THE hardware its about the PhysX which is not impressive enough for people to bother with adding hardware to run it.
These are games, not nuke simulations.
ATM the other software physics engines are quit capable of rending what has been seen in Physx games up to this point the level of accuracy of eyecandy physics is not as important as you make out to most of the worlds gamers.
Last edited:
There is no software engine capable of doing what you see in cryostasis above single digit fps and most of the effects in mirrors edge while not running the most optimal of performance would tax a software implementation too serverely to be useful.
And even if we don't take flashy physics effects into account 3D fps game engines are converging on a point where software physics can't run fast enough to simulate physics on simple bodies with a moderate degree of accuracy.
And even if we don't take flashy physics effects into account 3D fps game engines are converging on a point where software physics can't run fast enough to simulate physics on simple bodies with a moderate degree of accuracy.
Fact is, if only one company is competing in the market, you'll be seeing a lot of the same for the next 5 years or so.
Really!!, So i'll all be able to continue playing games for the next 5 years with physx enabled at 1920*1200 with AA with a good framerate without a seperate add in card for physx, awesome!
Really!!, So i'll all be able to continue playing games for the next 5 years with physx enabled at 1920*1200 with AA with a good framerate without a seperate add in card for physx, awesome!
Uh huh, and otherwise, we'd all be playing at 2560x1600 instead.
